October 6, 2011

2. He does have paragraph containing "four things," but the verbiage is mind-numbing and lacking in parallelism:

Whether [the Occupy Wall Street protests] will grow larger and sustain themselves beyond these initial street actions will depend upon four things: the work of skilled organizers; the success of those organizers in getting people, once these events end, to meet over and over and over again; whether or not the movement can promote public policy solutions that are organically linked to the quotidian lives of its supporters; and the ability of liberalism’s infrastructure of intellectuals, writers, artists and professionals to expend an enormous amount of their cultural capital in support of the movement.

4. He promised a list of a specific number of items and then he didn't put it in the form of a numbered list. People love numbered lists. The internet is full of them. They're highly clickable. What's wrong with us? Why do we keep falling for that?

ADDED: The post is signed by Ezra Klein but has an italicized parenthetical at the top saying he asked Rich Yeselson, a research coordinator at Change to Win, for some "thoughts on Occupy Wall Street." The post I'm complaining about is introduced as "some notes" from Yeselson, which Klein says he thinks are "worth publishing in full." Obviously, I didn't think this was worth reading in full, but now I assume the published text is completely the work of Rich Yeselson. As Bill Harshaw alerts me in the comments, this is "The one mistake of Ann Althouse." This is the great danger of pointing out someone else's mistakes: You look especially bad if you make a mistake yourself — and chances are you'll make the mistake at that point. (It seems everything every time I decide it's worth mocking a typo, I make a typo.)

Some say that the existance of Ezra Klein proves that the United States is no longer a meritocracy. I say it confirms the US is such a thing because otherwise Klein may actually be entrusted with an important and meaningful job.

Are any of these protestors stockholders? Because a corporation's foremost obligation is to it's shareholders and not a bunch of misfits whining about fairness.

Maybe I'm biased because my retirement savings is pretty much counting on the 'greed' of these corporations and I don't to relish the idea of my retirement plans being pissed away because some dumbass 20 something with a degree in Women's Studies wants her $80k student loans forgiven.

As Peggy Noonan recently wrote, the left is obsessed with the notion that the story line is all important in politics. They think that they're learning from President Reagan, who was supposed to be a magical Great Communicator.

The reality, as Noonan writes, is that Reagan's idea and policies were good. The electorate is able, after deliberation, to sort out good ideas from bad.

The problem with the Occupy Wall Street group is that their ideas are bad and incoherent, not that those ideas are delivered badly.

Is it possible to visit all the harm done by folks like these on them alone? I'm thinking of the teachers, other public employees and assorted bottom dwellers that are anticipating handsome retirement benefits derived largely from the success of the very institutions they are attacking. Any ideas?

An authentic social movement does not need or require "organizers," as if society were sheep to be led, much less an "infrastructure of intellectuals, writers, artists and professionals" to tell people what to think.

An authentic social movement sprouts and grows organically, with its members all acting on their own individual initiative -- unity in diversity.

Moreover, an authentic social movement does not need a deceitful and dishonest cheerleader, like Barack Obama, to fraudulently assert that the Wall Street mob is an act of, or representative of, "the American people" as a whole. But then again, that is part and parcel of the left's delusional thinking that everyone agrees with them (except for those evil extremists) and, until they do something, it hasn't been done already.

And, I find it hilarious that they think that anything created by moveon.org, staffed by unions, and aimed at big Democratic donors is going to get traction.

Anyone see that Goldman-Sachs label with the "o" in Goldman replaced by the Obama logo? I thought that it was pretty good and to the point - that they were one of the big culprits in the meltdown, that the financial bailout was run by their people, that AIG, an insurance company, was bailed out with TARP money primarily to protect GS, that Dodd-Frank effectively exempts them, etc.

And, all these droids think that Wall Street is Republican. They need to get a clue - the Republican firms were allowed to die. Goldman-Sachs, big contributors to Democrats since at least the time of FDR, was not. Same thing we saw with which GM franchises were shut down, etc.

Keep in mind that in a previous generation, Wall Street was populated with white shoed WASPs. But much of it is now Jewish - and, up until now, they have tended to vote for Democrats. (Nothing wrong with the Jewish part, just that the droids don't put 2+2 together very well).

I wonder exactly what it was that Klein asked Yeselson for, and whether that phrase "habits of highly successful social movements" figured in the request. As it stands, both men give the impression that they define success in terms of self-perpetuation (Whether they will grow larger and sustain themselves beyond these initial street actions...)

My idea of a highly successful social movement is one that quickly brings about some useful change in the law and then disbands.

Explain what that means. Are you saying everyone should be rich and have a dream job? Are you saying the state of the economy is actually pretty good and everyone should stop complaining? Are those without work in Republican areas of the country to be blamed and accused of being lazy too?

Does it bother you at all that Bank of America gets a huge bailout and yet they continue to rake in millions - which will increase when they start charging for consumers who use debit cards?

Matt says, "Does it bother you at all that Bank of America gets a huge bailout and yet they continue to rake in millions - which will increase when they start charging for consumers who use debit cards?"

Matt, do you even know what the Tea Party platform is?

Cause the Tea Party is just as pissed as apparently are you about B of A getting a bail out.

Yes, I know the Tea Party is upset about the B of A bailout. But according to Alex if someone is upset about it then they aren't looking at the facts, which according to him exonerate them.

I understand why the Tea Party is angry but I don't agree with all their methods. I can understand being wary of OWS because it is left leaning but at I would hope everyone regardless of party would be critical of Wall Street.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) So EVERYONE who is unemployed is a 20-something who got a socialogy degree? Gotcha

STRAWMAN….

BUT, many of the signs at OWS complain of their student loans, and considering their idiocy, I’d say at least 75% of the OWS protesters are Humanities Majors, from pricey schools..so YES, spend $40,000-plus on a Sociology/Womyn’s Studies/Gay Studies/Arts/English/Political Science Degree and expect a job IS foolish…and many of them have compounded or contemplating compounding their foolishness by seeking an MA or PhD, in these areas-I’d bet. So, yes get an over-priced unusable degree and then blame “Wall Street” it IS foolish…how about looking in the mirror and saying, “Man was I ever stupid for getting a Madonna Studies degree from Columbia!!!”

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) I would hope everyone regardless of party would be critical of Wall Street

Why? Because Wall Street makes money? Why am I supposed to be a priori critical of Wall Street? Why am I to be critical of people who match capital to businesses? My business/state/town needs capital; I turn to Wall Street, they hook me up with people who give me the capital I need. And I’m supposed to be critical, why?

He was dismissive about the age of the Constitution and said that it was hard to understand because it was so old! Phrases like "Congress shall have power ..." are very difficult to understand if you are the wonderkid of the WashPo! I think he as a degree in PoliSci from USC!

Can you present an actual breakdown of facts and figures backing your claim? Sure, many are young and have student loans but that covers a lot of students these days in all fields.

Also, it's not a matter of being critical of Wall St just for the sake of being critical. It's looking at the whole culture of the market and being skeptical about their aims and the corruption and exploitation and crony capitalism and ownership of political parties. [And that includes Democrats btw].

Does it bother you at all that Bank of America gets a huge bailout and yet they continue to rake in millions - which will increase when they start charging for consumers who use debit cards?

1) I didn’t agree with the bailouts.

2) If I can’t have my policy preference (no bailouts), loans that are repaid in full are less disagreeable than outright handouts.

3) A condition that the borrower forgo future income streams that it could use to repay the loan in full and on time would not be to the benefit of the taxpayers who were on the hook for the loan. It would also make it (at least marginally) more likely that the borrower would have to return for an additional loan.

4) The government who made the bailout conditioned it on Bank of America agreeing to limits on executive compensation but did not condition on Bank of America agreeing to forgo charging consumers for the use of its debit cards.

5) So even though I didn’t agree with the bailout, I prefer that the money be repaid in full to the taxpayers and oppose foolish conditions that make this less likely to be the case.

AAlthouse: "This is the great danger of pointing out someone else's mistakes: You look especially bad if you make a mistake yourself — and chances are you'll make the mistake at that point. (It seems every time I decide it's worth mocking a typo, I make a typo.)"

But of course. It's a law of the internet. Like Godwin's, though I don't think it has a name.

The message of Occupy WS stripped to essentials is this: A. We (the 99%) want things -- forgiveness of student loans, free health care, clean cheap energy, guaranteed incomes, etc. and B. we want them all, rejecting the notion that one objective must be traded off to achieve another). and C. we want someone else (the "government", the rich, or corporations -- presumably the 1%) to pay for it.